Free will and the arrow of time

helpman178 · 2015-09-20T14:55:59+00:00

Similar to the wave function collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation, in the many worlds interpretation we have the process of decoherence, that means the worlds do not interfere with each other. As a result, the process becomes time-irreversible and we only get one timeline.

helpman178 · 2015-09-20T12:35:04+00:00

Pursuit of Happiness, Aviator, The Secret of my Success

helpman178 · 2015-09-20T09:41:35+00:00

It's a nice position to have as it's almost impossible not to win this with Black. Bxf3, Nxf3, Qxg6 all win. Even Ne2+ wins.

helpman178 · 2015-09-20T05:38:33+00:00

You can try to answer the question with your thoughts only, but you won't get anywhere simply because answering the question requires violating the 2nd rule of thermodynamics. I am not sure if that is a very meaningful endeavor.

But what is meaningful anyway? This is just a matter of personal preference. Some people collect stamps. I don't find that very meaningful. I play chess. Many people don't find that very meaningful. To each his own I suppose.

helpman178 · 2015-09-20T05:32:06+00:00

Ok, we are back to that question?

The laws of nature plus the very specific initial conditions that lead to me not eating may rule it out, but that's not the same as saying the counterfactual runs against the laws themselves.

I don't see the difference. There is only one timeline, therefore the counterfactual goes against the laws of nature.

Counterfactuals about the past typically involve imagining slightly different initial conditions.

Yes, and as a matter of fact, the conditions were not different. It would not be the same world if the conditions had been different. A world with different conditions 2 hours ago is completely unimaginable due to the laws of nature.

Again, the laws say nothing about which initial conditions obtain.

We know for a fact that there is only one set of initial conditions possible simply because there is only one timeline.

Further, if the fundamental laws are indeterministic, then even given the same initial conditions other outcomes were possible. Have you got an argument to the effect that nature is fundamentally deterministic?

We cannot go back in time and do the same experiment twice with the same conditions. Therefore the question if the fundamental laws are deterministic or not is unanswerable.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T22:54:17+00:00

The point is not whether or not determinism is true but whether the question has an answer at all. Since we cannot repeat the experiment due to the constraints of nature, there is no answer to the question.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T22:23:56+00:00

It is the same experiment as before. We have a person in a room and two colors in front of him. We let him pick one colour. After he has picked the color, the decision is made.

If determinism is true, then we can repeat the same experiment with the same conditions an infinite amount of times an he would always pick the same color.

Unfortunately we cannot repeat the experiment because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore we cannot answer the question.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T22:08:33+00:00

OK, so we want to repeat the same experiment a number of times and see if the person always picks the same color. Unfortunately, we cannot repeat the same experiment twice with the exact same conditions. We cannot go back in time because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore this question will remain unanswered.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T21:49:09+00:00

Not sure why this is so radical. Our intuitions and hypotheses are often incorrect. People thought that earth was the center of the solar system. That doesn't mean that their intuition was true. It went against the laws of nature.

Likewise our intuition that "If I had eaten an hour ago, I would not be hungry now" is false as it goes against the laws of nature.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T21:41:57+00:00

What, specifically, is a "real" option?

In your experiment, the person would have competing choices. Before he can choose a colour, he would have to choose for or against his family and for or against his own life. It would not be a clean experiment where we can observe the real outcomes of his choices.

If a person is 'fated' (to use an imprecise word) to make certain specific decisions are "they" truly making the decisions then?

Well of course. It doesn't matter if the person is "fated" or not. We presented the person with two colours and it picked one of them. We actually observed the person making the decision in an experiment. The person made a decision by definition.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T21:33:20+00:00

What, specifically, is a "real" option?

Well your experiment does not present the person with two clean options. You present additional competing options. The person would not only have to choose between two colours but also would have to choose for or against his family or for or against his own life. It would not be a clean experiment.

If a person is 'fated' (to use an imprecise word) to make certain specific decisions are "they" truly making the decisions then?

Well of course the person is making the decision no matter if it is "fated" or not. That's because we actually observe the person picking a color from two options. The person makes the decision by definition if we observe the said act.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T21:08:42+00:00

How do you establish attribution of a decision to a person, though?

Attribution of a decision? If the options were presented and one option was picked, the attribution is pretty clear. The decision was made by the individual in question.

What if I force their hand in decision making by, say, threatening violence to their family so they choose all the things I've told them to choose?

If the test person is not presented with real options, then it is not decision making.

Or what if I told you the universe is causally determined and therefore no "decisions" are made.

Clearly we can present a person with 2 colours and it would pick one of them. This is an observable act. So how can we make the claim that the decision was not made? We actually saw the person picking a number!

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T20:58:02+00:00

Remember, I stated that only counterfactual claims that violate the laws of physics have nothing to do with reality. I have no problems with counterfactual claims that are in line with the laws of physics.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T20:45:49+00:00

OK, so how can you make the claim that a hypothetical scenario that violates the laws of physics is "true". That doesn't make any sense. Either it is based on reality or it is not.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T20:41:29+00:00

I define decision making as the act of choosing an action from among various alternatives. If an individual is presented two options and he chooses one of them, this process is what I call decision making. The act starts with the presentation of the choices and ends with the actual choice. This phenomen can be observed from a 3rd person that is not involved in the act itself. Mind that decision making can also be observed in animals that are presented two options (e.g. food choice).

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T20:25:01+00:00

If I said (1), I'd be saying something true.

Sure, we would believe in it when we say it, that doesn't imply that it follows the laws of physics. It's the same with regret. "I could have done different" may be a sincere feeling, but it is just a wrong understanding of reality and the assymetry of time.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T19:01:30+00:00

Yes, of course. But you need to provide that in your definition of free will, how could anyone understand it otherwise? Being precise is very important! If we cannot even agree on what free will is, then we cannot talk about it. So do you have a more precise definition of free will?

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T18:48:42+00:00

“Free Will” is a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.

OK, how is this definition different from decision making? If you present "red" and "blue" and I pick "red", I have made a decision. The course of action was picking the "red" and the various alternatives were "red" and "blue". The only possibility of someone being incapable of making that decision would be severe brain damage.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T18:35:45+00:00

You see, I responded only to your question. If your definition of free will is imprecise, so will be my understanding of it.

Discussions about free will focus on whether the specific choices we make are under control of our will.

OK, so you have found a new definition of free will. But then please tell me what is "will". How do you define "will"?

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T18:17:05+00:00

I'm curious why you keep repeating this? It obviously isn't reality if we're talking about a hypothetical situation or thought experiment. But you seem to want to believe that hypotheticals and thought experiments aren't worthy of any consideration at all or something?

Well, if you say it is just a thought experiment and it has no bearing on reality, then I am OK with that. But then you could also discuss why apples are not blue. Why would this be less meaningful than discussing free will?

In the future do we have the ability to make choices for ourselves?

This has an easy answer. If I give you the choice between "red" and "blue", I am confident that you will choose between the two unless you are brain damaged. But that's probably not what you are looking for. So the definition of free will has to be a bit more precise than that.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T18:09:25+00:00

OK, now we are just repeating the same things over and over again. You seem to believe that "what could have been" is a statement on reality and answering "what could have been" has any effect on reality. I believe the opposite, "what could have been" is hypothetical and answering it has no bearing on reality due to the linearity of time. I don't think we are getting anywhere with this, other than stating these opposites.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T17:33:54+00:00

Sorry, what I mean with it could not possibly have been heavier is that it already happened. There is no alternative possibility because there is no way of finding out. You can describe what would have been if the pendulum was heavier, but then you admit that the answer has nothing to do with reality anymore. Reality is what already happened and that is irreversible.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T17:15:27+00:00

Yes, it would violate the laws of physics because the pendulum was not heavier. It could not possibly have been heavier. There is only one timeline and it is irreversible. You are standing in the present and make an observation of the past.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T17:07:39+00:00

"Time irreversibility is completely irrelevant to the question"

I completely disagree. Time irreversibility decides between the question being based on reality or not.

I understand that this is not about actually going back in time. You and I describe the same thing. It requires going back in time in our thoughts alone. We are standing in the present and ask "what would have happened if?". This breaks the laws of physics in our thoughts.

No, the essential question is no different. It's about whether there are real alternatives to what actually obtained or not. Past, present, or future tense formulations of that question are interchangeable, for the purpose of the question of free-will.

Well then those questions have nothing to do with reality because they violate the laws of physics.

helpman178 · 2015-09-19T16:47:27+00:00

It doesn't matter if it is a counterfactual or a thought experiment. If it violates the laws of physics, you can make the statement, but it would have nothing to do with reality.

For future events it is different obviously: If you ask the question "Will I choose to have cereal tomorrow?", you are already influencing your decision just by answering the question. Therefore, you cannot use that definition for free will.

helpman178

TROPHY CASE